Vikas Menghwani

Introducing local renewable energy solutions into the fossil fuel dominated energy mix of many northern and off-grid Indigenous communities has the potential to create new socio-economic opportunity and address historical energy injustices. However, energy systems are comprised not only of technology and infrastructure but also the communities who generate, use, and benefit from energy. The design of local energy systems that are community appropriate thus requires an understanding of a community’s socio-technical capacity, coupled with an understanding of the social processes that stimulate and sustain transitions and the longer-term, desired outcomes from local energy. This paper explores the socio-technical capacity for renewable energy transitions in northern and Indigenous communities, based on a case study of four Gwich’in communities in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Results show that the foundational attributes of socio-technical capacity for energy transition in northern communities are interconnected, and strengths or challenges in one area often reflect strengths or challenges in another. Several capacity strengths already exist to support energy transition, including community energy values inclusive of community vision and the embedded and transferable skillsets of communities, coupled with next generation leaders. In turn, there are areas where significant capacity building is required, including supports for local energy champion(s) and enabling inter-local energy networks. Results also demonstrate that recent scholarly literature regarding local capacity for community energy does not tightly align with, or reflect the nuances of, energy transition needs in northern and Indigenous communities.

Bioenergy represents a viable renewable alternative for the many off-grid remote communities in Northern Canada that rely on diesel-based energy infrastructure. Despite the abundance of forest-based biomass, bioenergy for heat and power in Canada is used primarily in industrial contexts. Community-scale bioenergy, although growing, has been limited. Supply chain challenges, institutional and policy arrangements, and community perspectives indicate a need to better understand the ‘business ecosystem’ for bioenergy in Canada. The ecosystem includes technologies, community contexts, suppliers, developers, and policy makers. In this study, we explore the bioenergy business ecosystem challenges and perspectives from supply-side stakeholders. Interviews were conducted with representatives from the government, industry, and community—all working in bioenergy. The results indicate the following challenges facing the bioenergy ecosystem, with respect to community energy security: lack of cross-jurisdictional consistency in legislation and policies across Canada, structural issues such as subsidized energy and utility ownership, and misdirected support for local capacity building in the bioenergy sector. We also find that the existing support systems are prone to misuse, pointing to efficiency gaps in investment flows. The insights that emerge from this work, especially from industry stakeholders, are meaningful for communities and policy makers alike.

Roughly 2.8 billion people depend on solid fuels for cooking needs, resulting in a tremendous burden of disease from exposure to household air pollution. Despite decades of effort to promote cleaner cooking technologies, displacement of polluting technologies has progressed slowly. This paper describes results of a randomized controlled trial in which eight communities in two regions of rural India were presented with a range of cooking choices including improved solid fuel stoves and clean cooking options like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and induction stoves. Using survey data and logistic and multinomial regression, we identify factors associated with two outcomes: (1) pre-intervention ownership of non-solid fuel technologies and (2) household preferences for clean fuels from the range of cooking options offered. The analysis allows us to examine the influence of education, wealth, gender empowerment, stove pricing, and stove exchanges, among other variables. The majority of participants across all communities selected the cleanest options, LPG and induction, irrespective of price, but there is some variation in preferences. Wealth and higher caste stand out as significant predictors of pre-intervention ownership and non-solid fuel cooking options as well as preference for cleaner technologies offered through the intervention. The experimental treatments also influence preferences in some communities. When given the opportunity to exchange, communities in one region are more likely to choose solid fuel stoves (P < 0.05). Giving free stoves had mixed results; households in one region are more likely to select clean options (P < 0.05), but households in the other region prefer solid fuels (P < 0.10).